Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Power of Faith
Several years ago--when I was still an atheist--I wrote an article called "Believing Is Seeing." My point was that even something as apparently "objective" as sensory perceptions can differ, based on the mindset of the person interpreting them. For example, in college I had a t-shirt business with my friend, and one of our first major orders for a fraternity got screwed up. We had made t-shirts for their "Delta Tau Delta Ski Weekend" trip, and when the guys were having a snowball fight a bunch of the ink on the shirts started bleeding.
So obviously we hadn't properly "cured" the shirts with the heating element, and of course we went to talk to the guy who handled the activities for the Delts. I was mortified, thinking, "Where did we ever get the idea we could start our own business like this?", and at the end of the conversation I was dead certain the Delt guy said, "We can't do business again with you guys."
In the car ride, my partner said, "Well I'm glad they weren't p*ssed. Assuming we fix all these and there's no more bleeding, we'll get the next order." It soon became clear that he had heard the Delt say, "We CAN do business again with you guys." (He was right.)
I have had tons of experiences like this, and what's really amazing is when I see other people misinterpreting something that is "obvious" to me.
So it is clear that even an atheist who is "rational" and "scientific" (in quotation marks because I'm talking about the atheist who proudly trumpets these terms about himself) can acknowledge somewhat corny things like, "You are your biggest critic" or "You can achieve if you believe."
I'm not going to relay the whole story now, but part of what happened when I went from being a "devout atheist" (the actual term I used) into a born-again Christian, was that at some point when I was still an atheist, I realized just how powerful the power of suggestion was. For the first time, I understood how faith healings "worked." I didn't attribute anything supernatural to it, of course; I thought medical doctors could give a perfectly satisfactory explanation (at least in principle), but that the ignorant rubes would view it as "a miracle."
In particular, at that point I thought the most rational explanation for everything I knew about Jesus of Nazareth--which included the undeniable dedication of his followers--was that he really did heal people, because they actually believed he had that power. (Note that Jesus Himself often acknowledges this when He says, "Your faith has healed you.")
Think of it like this: There are apparently studies showing that if you want to predict which patients will survive a particular surgery, and which won't, what you do isn't to check the medical histories etc. Instead, you ask the people why they are getting the surgery. If someone says, "Because the doctor says I should" or "I want to resolve this one way or the other," then that person is probably not going to make it. But if the person says, "The doctor says if it works, I can golf again" or "I want to see my daughter get her diploma," then those people are much more likely to enjoy a full recovery.
Now then, even a perfectly rational atheist can understand why the above is true. Someone's attitude makes a heck of a lot of difference in what he or she can accomplish. Now: Who is going to be more of an unstoppable force? The person who says, "There is no purpose to evolution, and there is no non-arbitrary sense in which homo sapiens are a 'higher' life form than a bacterium," or the person who says, "The LORD who created the heavens and the earth is about to work a miracle through me"?
Last point: I can imagine all sorts of obvious retorts from my friendly atheist readers. (Remember, I used to think like you, and I would have had a field day with this post too.) But there is a huge difference between someone saying "God told me I needed $6 million in donations or else I was going to die," versus someone actually believing that God had given him instructions. There are plenty of scientists who have falsified their lab reports etc. too; obviously they don't pose any problem for the legitimacy of the scientific method.
Just because there are charlatans who take advantage of naive theists, doesn't (by itself) discredit theism. It is undeniable that some of the most incredible artwork, and even some of the most incredible scientific discoveries, were achieved by people who have been devout believers in God and in fact would attribute their successes to divine inspiration.
So obviously we hadn't properly "cured" the shirts with the heating element, and of course we went to talk to the guy who handled the activities for the Delts. I was mortified, thinking, "Where did we ever get the idea we could start our own business like this?", and at the end of the conversation I was dead certain the Delt guy said, "We can't do business again with you guys."
In the car ride, my partner said, "Well I'm glad they weren't p*ssed. Assuming we fix all these and there's no more bleeding, we'll get the next order." It soon became clear that he had heard the Delt say, "We CAN do business again with you guys." (He was right.)
I have had tons of experiences like this, and what's really amazing is when I see other people misinterpreting something that is "obvious" to me.
So it is clear that even an atheist who is "rational" and "scientific" (in quotation marks because I'm talking about the atheist who proudly trumpets these terms about himself) can acknowledge somewhat corny things like, "You are your biggest critic" or "You can achieve if you believe."
I'm not going to relay the whole story now, but part of what happened when I went from being a "devout atheist" (the actual term I used) into a born-again Christian, was that at some point when I was still an atheist, I realized just how powerful the power of suggestion was. For the first time, I understood how faith healings "worked." I didn't attribute anything supernatural to it, of course; I thought medical doctors could give a perfectly satisfactory explanation (at least in principle), but that the ignorant rubes would view it as "a miracle."
In particular, at that point I thought the most rational explanation for everything I knew about Jesus of Nazareth--which included the undeniable dedication of his followers--was that he really did heal people, because they actually believed he had that power. (Note that Jesus Himself often acknowledges this when He says, "Your faith has healed you.")
Think of it like this: There are apparently studies showing that if you want to predict which patients will survive a particular surgery, and which won't, what you do isn't to check the medical histories etc. Instead, you ask the people why they are getting the surgery. If someone says, "Because the doctor says I should" or "I want to resolve this one way or the other," then that person is probably not going to make it. But if the person says, "The doctor says if it works, I can golf again" or "I want to see my daughter get her diploma," then those people are much more likely to enjoy a full recovery.
Now then, even a perfectly rational atheist can understand why the above is true. Someone's attitude makes a heck of a lot of difference in what he or she can accomplish. Now: Who is going to be more of an unstoppable force? The person who says, "There is no purpose to evolution, and there is no non-arbitrary sense in which homo sapiens are a 'higher' life form than a bacterium," or the person who says, "The LORD who created the heavens and the earth is about to work a miracle through me"?
Last point: I can imagine all sorts of obvious retorts from my friendly atheist readers. (Remember, I used to think like you, and I would have had a field day with this post too.) But there is a huge difference between someone saying "God told me I needed $6 million in donations or else I was going to die," versus someone actually believing that God had given him instructions. There are plenty of scientists who have falsified their lab reports etc. too; obviously they don't pose any problem for the legitimacy of the scientific method.
Just because there are charlatans who take advantage of naive theists, doesn't (by itself) discredit theism. It is undeniable that some of the most incredible artwork, and even some of the most incredible scientific discoveries, were achieved by people who have been devout believers in God and in fact would attribute their successes to divine inspiration.
Comments:
so why cant the faith be in sceintific explanation of this. why does it have to do with jesus. Can't an atheist have faith in healing powers of subtle forces (like faith itself)
# posted by 
: May 31, 2009 at 9:54 PM
: May 31, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Anon,
Sorry, I didn't do a good job making that point. Your objection is exactly what I had in mind when I talked about the "unstoppable force" bit.
It's similar to the objection to pure consequentialism. If you are only abstaining from murder, theft, etc., because you weigh the costs and benefits--and not because you actually think "they are immoral"--then that isn't as powerful check as if you really truly believe "deep down" that those things are simply unacceptable and off the table. And ironically, you end up happier than if you tried to rationally pursue happiness.
So by the same token, someone who truly believes with all his heart that Jesus is going to heal him, that person will have a much more significant recovery from a psychosomatic ailment, than someone who thinks, "Medical science tells me there is nothing wrong with my legs. I can stand up and walk if only I would stop thinking of that sin I committed 20 years ago. OK let's do it, 1, 2, 3, I'm gonna get off this stretcher and walk!"
Sorry, I didn't do a good job making that point. Your objection is exactly what I had in mind when I talked about the "unstoppable force" bit.
It's similar to the objection to pure consequentialism. If you are only abstaining from murder, theft, etc., because you weigh the costs and benefits--and not because you actually think "they are immoral"--then that isn't as powerful check as if you really truly believe "deep down" that those things are simply unacceptable and off the table. And ironically, you end up happier than if you tried to rationally pursue happiness.
So by the same token, someone who truly believes with all his heart that Jesus is going to heal him, that person will have a much more significant recovery from a psychosomatic ailment, than someone who thinks, "Medical science tells me there is nothing wrong with my legs. I can stand up and walk if only I would stop thinking of that sin I committed 20 years ago. OK let's do it, 1, 2, 3, I'm gonna get off this stretcher and walk!"
are you saying we need to have blind faith to get the benefits of faith. cant we understand scientifically/emotionally the concept of god and the advantages it brings with it ? Do we have to believe in a person called "jesus"/the-god ?
An atheist can be spirtual/open-mided to all possibilities. They need not be a full opposite of blind religion-followers. They can medidate on all possiblities and understand the subtle forces in nature. I would say "buddha" is an atheist. He literally tried to explain everything logically.
Ignore may be bliss, but only so far.
An atheist can be spirtual/open-mided to all possibilities. They need not be a full opposite of blind religion-followers. They can medidate on all possiblities and understand the subtle forces in nature. I would say "buddha" is an atheist. He literally tried to explain everything logically.
Ignore may be bliss, but only so far.
# posted by : June 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM
: June 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I've been following your blog for quite some time now and, with all due respect, tend to tune out your Sunday sermons. I read your commentary today and was wondering why you don't apply the same logic and reasoning to your religious convictions as you do with your economic analysis. I guess one can believe whatever one wants to believe, but with a background in Austrian epistemology and, I hope, philosophy I guess I can't understand why you made the switch.
Are you confusing possibilities with probabilities? You've been torturing logic to make religious arguments fit your convictions. The bottom line is that you can’t prove the real cause and effect of medical cures but you wish to conclude that the cure was due to religion. I just don't think that's a rational way of looking at life. But then, we're discussing religion. When you say "I have faith!" then we are beyond rational discussion.
If I were to conclude that fiscal stimulus works, has worked in the past, and has always worked to cure recessions, you would apply reason and logic to argue the point with me. But when you step into faith, as Keynesians have, it's difficult to discuss it because we are beyond logic. If you can convince me that we humans have powers of knowledge beyond what our brains are capable of (reason, logic) then you are would have to use reason and logic to prove faith which can't be done. So you are caught in a tautology.
I respect your economic analysis. I think you are one of the best out there with your commentary. But I think you’ve jettisoned your humanity–the thing that makes us human–when you ascribe cause and effect to religious phenomenon.
I don’t mean to demean your beliefs, because I think you are sincere. But when you comment on something like the Holocaust as being a cog in the divine scheme it makes me cringe. Maybe this is not the best forum to discuss things as deep as free will, logic, reason, and faith, but you brought it up and I’m not the kind of person to not put in my two cents.
Are you confusing possibilities with probabilities? You've been torturing logic to make religious arguments fit your convictions. The bottom line is that you can’t prove the real cause and effect of medical cures but you wish to conclude that the cure was due to religion. I just don't think that's a rational way of looking at life. But then, we're discussing religion. When you say "I have faith!" then we are beyond rational discussion.
If I were to conclude that fiscal stimulus works, has worked in the past, and has always worked to cure recessions, you would apply reason and logic to argue the point with me. But when you step into faith, as Keynesians have, it's difficult to discuss it because we are beyond logic. If you can convince me that we humans have powers of knowledge beyond what our brains are capable of (reason, logic) then you are would have to use reason and logic to prove faith which can't be done. So you are caught in a tautology.
I respect your economic analysis. I think you are one of the best out there with your commentary. But I think you’ve jettisoned your humanity–the thing that makes us human–when you ascribe cause and effect to religious phenomenon.
I don’t mean to demean your beliefs, because I think you are sincere. But when you comment on something like the Holocaust as being a cog in the divine scheme it makes me cringe. Maybe this is not the best forum to discuss things as deep as free will, logic, reason, and faith, but you brought it up and I’m not the kind of person to not put in my two cents.
It feels as if Mr. Murphy is making a consequentialist argument for theism not too dissimilar to Pascel.
If one is more positive and motivated and that stems from fervent faith you could live a better life (after life).
I don't disagree really... but the important aspect is the positive, motivated attitude. The source for that could be just about anything. As a skeptic I search for truth. It's my motivation. As I don't find convincing evidence for an afterlife I strive to make my time productive and fulfilling. As a libertarian I see the best hope for humanity to be freedom. I seek truth in all realms. Those combine drive me just as much as any theist fearing gods wrath or welcoming its healing love.
I don't think you can truly quantify one's level of motivation or source of their drive. And while I may be convinced that faith in a god or in Jesus may be a huge motivator... for someone to argue that as a reason to believe is high suspect from a scientific perspective as well as from a religious one.
If one is more positive and motivated and that stems from fervent faith you could live a better life (after life).
I don't disagree really... but the important aspect is the positive, motivated attitude. The source for that could be just about anything. As a skeptic I search for truth. It's my motivation. As I don't find convincing evidence for an afterlife I strive to make my time productive and fulfilling. As a libertarian I see the best hope for humanity to be freedom. I seek truth in all realms. Those combine drive me just as much as any theist fearing gods wrath or welcoming its healing love.
I don't think you can truly quantify one's level of motivation or source of their drive. And while I may be convinced that faith in a god or in Jesus may be a huge motivator... for someone to argue that as a reason to believe is high suspect from a scientific perspective as well as from a religious one.
"Who is going to be more of an unstoppable force?"
With this logic, I don't understand why you aren't a socialist.
The free market and capitalism lack any direction or goal. Why continue to cling to weak and negative philosphy. Embrace the unstoppable force of socialism.
With this logic, I don't understand why you aren't a socialist.
The free market and capitalism lack any direction or goal. Why continue to cling to weak and negative philosphy. Embrace the unstoppable force of socialism.
# posted by : June 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM
: June 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM
"If you are only abstaining from murder, theft, etc., because you weigh the costs and benefits--and not because you actually think "they are immoral"--then that isn't as powerful check as if you really truly believe "deep down" that those things are simply unacceptable and off the table."
You're putting up a straw man when referring to those who weigh the costs and benefits before performing a certain action. I don't have to weigh my options before deciding to murder a man or not, but it's not because I believe through blind faith that murder is "bad". I've made that decision a long time ago. My code of morality has been developed over time, had been faith based (it's not easy to tell a young child not to hit other kids by using reason), but is now based on reason (although I've only just started down this path), and I still arrive at the same conclusion.
I'll argue that men of reason believe things more "deep down" than any man of faith could, because the man of reason's beliefs are non-contradictory and based in reality. Ultimately, men of faith cannot answer the simple question, "Why?" - and that question will always linger in their minds (while they struggle to find some reality-based argument for it, which is impossible).
The only reason you believe that men of faith are the only ones who can truly believe something "deep down" is because the alternatives to faith have never been fully understood by the majority of people - especially post American Revolution. It's much easier to take directions from a totalitarian figure than to actually think for yourself; just look at what is happening today.
Post a Comment
You're putting up a straw man when referring to those who weigh the costs and benefits before performing a certain action. I don't have to weigh my options before deciding to murder a man or not, but it's not because I believe through blind faith that murder is "bad". I've made that decision a long time ago. My code of morality has been developed over time, had been faith based (it's not easy to tell a young child not to hit other kids by using reason), but is now based on reason (although I've only just started down this path), and I still arrive at the same conclusion.
I'll argue that men of reason believe things more "deep down" than any man of faith could, because the man of reason's beliefs are non-contradictory and based in reality. Ultimately, men of faith cannot answer the simple question, "Why?" - and that question will always linger in their minds (while they struggle to find some reality-based argument for it, which is impossible).
The only reason you believe that men of faith are the only ones who can truly believe something "deep down" is because the alternatives to faith have never been fully understood by the majority of people - especially post American Revolution. It's much easier to take directions from a totalitarian figure than to actually think for yourself; just look at what is happening today.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]